This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy

Well of course that's pushing it to its limits; but that was the point.

But, if you have a tail light out, should you suddenly face arrest if you forgot your wallet?

And let's face it; only an Hispanic person would suffer that fate. A Hispanic person who has forgotten their wallet or lost their ID would be considered arrest-worthy (until such time they can prove their identity).

This law is draconian and it is NOT what you guys are making it out to be.

If it were a simple law it would simply say, Arizona police should check immigration status as part of arrest procedures.

There - that's done. It doesn't put one group at greater risk than another. It doesn't force people to "show their papers" at any cop's whimsy. It says, if you commit a crime, additionally, your legal status will be checked. Which is NOT what the Arizona law currently says. It merely states that the initial contact by the officer must be "legal". And it requires him or her to check the status of anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being illegal.

That's vague and it can and will lead to draconian measures that will singularly be pointed at 1/3 of the Arizona population.

And it took me about five seconds to write a law that avoids all the controversy.

Then again, these Arizonans are thankfully protecting us from teachers with accents and human-animal hybrids.

I swear, there's a really big gas leak out there or something has gotten into the water supply.

I love the spin. Maybe you have gotten to close to some moonshine in TN.
The english bill is to ensure that teachers speak so students can understand and the words are pronounced correctly. No teacher is loosing their jobs because of the bill.

"
The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from "creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm."

From azcentral.com
The measure would also outlaw "transferring or attempting to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb," "transferring or attempting to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb" and "transporting or receiving for any purpose a human-animal hybrid."

Louisiana passed a similar law in 2009, the same year Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009. The Senate did not take up Brownback proposed law.

Re: Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

Has anybody found an actual definition for the term "lawful contact" anywhere? Some people say I must have already committed a crime, but I haven't found anything to support that interpretation. For all I know, "Good day sir!" could be interpreted as "lawful contact."

He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear

Re: Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

Originally Posted by Deuce

Has anybody found an actual definition for the term "lawful contact" anywhere? Some people say I must have already committed a crime, but I haven't found anything to support that interpretation. For all I know, "Good day sir!" could be interpreted as "lawful contact."

I think it's a cloudier version of the term "offensive contact" which, don't quote me though, means you have to have made contact with the officer because of some offending action like breaking a crime or suspicion.

EDIT: Actually, I found the definition from Kris Kobach at the Washington Times. He states that:

"That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach ...

Re: Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

I really see absolutely no problem with verifying US citizenship, especially when there is a massive illegal immigrant problem. Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigration are far more harsh, the sentences are also very heavy compared to ours. They guard their southern border heavily as well. Honestly if the likes of the Mexican government and Obama are criticizing this bill then that's all the more reason to support it and see it as something that will help Arizona.

Re: Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

Originally Posted by Deuce

Has anybody found an actual definition for the term "lawful contact" anywhere? Some people say I must have already committed a crime, but I haven't found anything to support that interpretation. For all I know, "Good day sir!" could be interpreted as "lawful contact."

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

Contrary to the hysterical charges of racism being leveled at the statute, it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance.

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.

The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.

Re: Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

Originally Posted by mike2810

I love the spin. Maybe you have gotten to close to some moonshine in TN.
The english bill is to ensure that teachers speak so students can understand and the words are pronounced correctly. No teacher is loosing their jobs because of the bill.

"
The bill, which passed 16 to 12, would prohibit anyone in the state from "creating or attempting to create an in vitro human embryo by any means other than fertilization of a human egg by a human sperm."

From azcentral.com
The measure would also outlaw "transferring or attempting to transfer a human embryo into a nonhuman womb," "transferring or attempting to transfer a nonhuman embryo into a human womb" and "transporting or receiving for any purpose a human-animal hybrid."

Louisiana passed a similar law in 2009, the same year Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) introduced the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009. The Senate did not take up Brownback proposed law.

"The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English."

It goes on to say that this is likely a result of hiring ESL teachers (some specifically recruited from South of the Border) to meet No Child Left Behind requirements.

And I love that "tink" (as it sounds to the enforcer) is proof of poor English instead of "think".

They were hired for their ability to speak two languages. And now, they're going to be fired for the very skill-set that brought them here.

Re: Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

Originally Posted by digsbe

I really see absolutely no problem with verifying US citizenship, especially when there is a massive illegal immigrant problem. Mexico's laws regarding illegal immigration are far more harsh, the sentences are also very heavy compared to ours. They guard their southern border heavily as well. Honestly if the likes of the Mexican government and Obama are criticizing this bill then that's all the more reason to support it and see it as something that will help Arizona.

And the Nazis saw no problem with stopping citizens to ask them for their citizenship papers.